The Columbia Basin PIT Tag Information System The First 20 Years Dave Marvin Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission A Presentation for the PSMFC PIT Tag Workshop January 26, 2011

Overview Development of PIT tag-related activities since 1987 –Growth of Tagging and Interrogation activities –Summary of Recapture and Mortality events Coordination and cooperation between PIT tag data contributors Integration of PIT tag activities with facility operations and regional objectives Integrity, veracity, transparency, and accessibility of PIT tag data

Typical Uses of PIT Tags in the Columbia Basin Parr & smolt monitoring and survival studies –Travel time through streams and river reaches –Arrival timing and passage distributions at key dams –Smolt condition and physiology evaluations –Smolt transportation evaluations –Smolt and SAR survival studies –Sub-basin habitat evaluations Adult research and monitoring –Migration duration and timing –Stock identification –Straying behavior Multi-mark (secondary/shared) tagging –External tags and marks –Radio, acoustic (HTI, JSATS & POST) tags –Recovery of archival data storage tags using SbyC

Chinook19,504,371 O. mykiss5,866,144 Coho1,105,175 Sockeye445,499 Bull Trout17,517 Cutthroat12,780 NPM8,380 Other3,441 Shad2,939 Pacific Lamprey1,966 Brook Trout1,071 White Sturgeon966 Whitefish504 Total26,970,753 Numbers and Percentages of Fish Species PIT-tagged in the Columbia Basin

PIT Tag Detections > 1,000, ,001 – 1,000,000 10,0001 – 100,000 1,001 – 10, – 1,000 < 100

PIT Tag Detections > 1,000, ,001 – 1,000,000 10,0001 – 100,000 1,001 – 10, – 1,000 < 100

PIT Tag Detections > 1,000, ,001 – 1,000,000 10,0001 – 100,000 1,001 – 10, – 1,000 < 100

PIT Tag Detections > 1,000, ,001 – 1,000,000 10,0001 – 100,000 1,001 – 10, – 1,000 < 100

PIT Tag Detections > 1,000, ,001 – 1,000,000 10,0001 – 100,000 1,001 – 10, – 1,000 < 100

Recaptures Recapture events are generally ancillary to marking activities. Marking projects often recapture other researchers’ tagged fish. Recaptures provide a unique opportunity to record changes in morphology and physiology. Over 800k tagged fish have been recaptured one or more times. Recapture events are recorded throughout the CB, but 40% have been reported from just 20 trap and dam locations. SbyC is used to target specific smolts at the LGR, LGS, MCN, JDA, and BON bypasses, and adults at the BON AFF and LGR adult trap.

Mortalities 994k mortality events from the recovery of host fish or bare tags: Tags detected in marked Northern Pikeminnow recovered in the Sport Reward Fishery, and from NPM prey Tags detected in sport and commercial harvests Tags detected in hatchery spawners Bare tags retrieved from bypass systems at dams 924k (93%) detected in situ from colonies of avian piscivores (terns, cormorants, pelicans, gulls) ~575k (58%) reported from colonial sites in the Columbia River estuary.

IHR MCN JDA RIS 30k 10k 244k 22k 574k Mortalities of PIT-tagged Fish due to Avian Predation <1k 43k 1k <1k 1k

Coordination and Cooperation By marking project: Each Tag Data Coordinator “owns”, and is responsible for, his or her contributed PIT tag event data. Between projects: The primary purpose of the PTAGIS database is to facilitate the ready exchange of data collected from multiple sources for individual tagged fish. Coordinated – Using an established data dictionary to describe events in a common and consistent fashion. Cooperative – Tagged fish are often observed by multiple entities as the fish migrate through the Columbia Basin. Multi-agency Studies: Agencies frequently collaborate to share resources and data for large-scale studies. CSS, ISS, SMP RAPH: CSS & Corps, CSS & NOAA Fisheries CSS, ISS, and Corps Transportation Studies

PIT Tag Marking Effort in the Columbia Basin by Entities and Project Coordinators

PTAGIS Data Contributors Federal Management Agencies NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Resource Management Agencies Idaho Department of Fish and Game Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife University Research Cooperatives Idaho Coop. Fish & Wildlife Research Unit Utah Coop. Fish & Wildlife Research Unit Tribal Management Agencies Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Comm. Colville Confederated Tribes Conf. Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Rsvn. Conf. Tribes of the Warm Springs Rsvn. Nez Perce Tribe Okanagan Nation Alliance Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Yakama Nation Other Government Entities Columbia River Estuary Task Force Fish Passage Center Pacific States Marine Fisheries Comm. Snake River Salmon Recovery Board U.S. Geological Survey Power Utilities Chelan County PUD Douglas County PUD Grant County PUD Idaho Power Company Portland General Electric Other Entities Biomark, Inc. Ducks Unlimited Kintama Research Corp. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Quantitative Consultants, Inc. Real Time Research, Inc. Wild Fish Conservancy

Integration of PIT tag events with other CB activities Detectors and diverters are installed directly into the fish passage facilities at main-stem dams and other locations. Dam operations themselves: JBS operations augmented with PIT tag detection capabilities in the primary bypass. Limited Spring-time condition sampling at MCN Expanded bypass seasons Study Integration: PIT tags are used as a secondary mark to extend and expand the primary study objectives. Adult telemetry studies Smolt telemetry studies, in-river and off-shore Facility passage evaluations Any study needing known-source fish

Data Integrity Consistency Standard event model definitions Standard data definitions Veracity P3 contains data verification tools Redundant data validation; during data collection and prior to acceptance by PTAGIS Direct input eliminates “interpretation”

Data Integrity Consistency Standard event model definitions Standard data definitions Veracity P3 contains data verification tools Redundant data validation; during data collection and prior to acceptance by PTAGIS Direct input eliminates “interpretation” Accountability – all data are “owned” Transparency and accessibility – data and data files are immediately and freely available from PTAGIS

Conclusions Since 1991, PTAGIS has grown: from 100k fish tagged annually to >2.5M tagged annually; from eight interrogation sites along the Snake- Columbia migration corridor to >100 sites throughout the Columbia Basin; from 130 Coordinators working for three dozen entities. During the last 20 years, the focus of PIT tag studies has expanded from monitoring the timing and duration of smolt migrations to evaluating survival and behavior over the entire life span of salmon and other species. Can the advances in PIT tag technology and applications since 1991 shape our expectations for 2031?

What do we expect from PTAGIS? The same things we want in politicians: Accountability Integrity Truth (veracity) How do we achieve this? Coordination & Cooperation Integration with other CB actions Validation and Verification

PIT Tag Detections > 1,000, ,001 – 1,000,000 10,0001 – 100,000 1,001 – 10, – 1,000 < 100

PIT Tag Data Validation Processes